Bksuboti.
That is how I understand it too
The question now as pe DD here is whether we can say Ekagata for the one-pointedness of the unwholesome consciousness.
Another question is whether we can use the term Ekagata for the one picture frame.

There is only one object in successive frames or mind moments. When it is repeated over and over again, one can enter jhana.. that power gets strong and it is discernible in a single mind moment too.

I imagine the experience of momentariness would diminish in jhana rather than enhance. Prior to jhana, when the mind knows every coming & going of every in-breath and out-breath, it is obvious the experience of momentariness would be profound. But in jhana, this movement of consciousness arising & passing with each breath arising & passing would stop. In jhana, stillness would be the salient characteristic. This is what is probably meant by ekagata.

Many yogis go "inside" the nimitta and so the object is less likely to change.

While I personally would not use the above description, yes, the object is less likely to change, which appears to contradict your previous idea about single mind moments (given single moments are discerned as changing rather than unchanging).

You need to understand that Abhidhamma takes things on a single mind moment. Therefore ekagata (one object .. or one going) is present in every single consciousness because there is only one object for each mind moment. Think of it like a video frame in a video file.

I already addressed the above heresy or alien doctrine. If ekagata (one object .. or one going) is present in every single consciousness because there is only one object for each mind moment then it is also present in every UNWHOLESOME mind moment. Since the jhana of the Buddha is free from the unwholesome, the Buddha's jhana is unrelated to the above alien ideas about ekagata is present in every single consciousness.

The ekagata (and nimitta) of the Buddha's jhana is born from purity & is a sign of purity. Thus, for the Lord Buddha, the purity and non-sensual bliss of jhanic ekaggata does not exist in every mind moment.

You need to understand that Abhidhamma takes things on a single mind moment. Therefore ekagata (one object .. or one going) is present in every single consciousness because there is only one object for each mind moment.

Therefore, according to Abhidhamma, ekaggata can be unwholesome too (a miccha ekaggata): With one pointed mind I kill somebody. Since it's present in every single consciousness as you said, then no point of specifically mention it in the suttas as good or bad mind, it will be automatically there.

“Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a canonical tradition, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think: ‘The ascetic is our guru.’”
- Kālāma-sutta

The question now as pe DD here is whether we can say Ekaggata for the one-pointedness of the unwholesome consciousness.
Another question is whether we can use the term Ekaggata for the one picture frame.

Jhana and Bhavanga are the only types of consciousness that can occur in unbroken succession for more than 7 mind moments. They are sort of opposites in terms of power. Jhana is strong of course while the latter is so subtle yogis confuse this as "nothingness" and a fake nibbana (with a small n). So... ekaggata is present in unwholesome, wholesome and kriya consciousness but it is not present to the extreme as in jhana... like I said, it is a one-frame picture. That is what it is.... Jhana ekaggata is different (in power) and in the same context..we could say it (ekaggata with such power) is not present.

I imagine the experience of momentariness would diminish in jhana rather than enhance. Prior to jhana, when the mind knows every coming & going of every in-breath and out-breath, it is obvious the experience of momentariness would be profound. But in jhana, this movement of consciousness arising & passing with each breath arising & passing would stop. In jhana, stillness would be the salient characteristic. This is what is probably meant by ekaggata.

The breath nimitta is the object of jhana, not the breath itself. Good luck otherwise. You are your own critic.

I hope I answered the questions. I did not quote everyone, but it seems like the quotes I did bring up were all similar.

It is best to read my book called Abhidhamma Lessons at https://americanmonk.org . One of the last chapters, explains jhana according to Abhidhamma. However, it is a little bit successive in nature so you need to read the whole book first to understand it.

Sorry. But what was posted was nothing real as far as I am concerned. SarathW might be your disciple or have faith in you but not my good self. Where did I ever ask of you to provide a teaching; let alone to be my teacher? I accept nothing you wrote. Your hope appears completely in vain given nothing was answered as far as I am concerned. For me, if I accepted your answer, for me, this would be a transgression against the Triple Gem. My refuge is in the Buddha, Dhamma and Noble Sangha. The Noble Sangha is the Enlightened Community. The Dhamma is visible here-&-now, inviting inspection, leading to Nibbana, to be verified by the wise. Sorry. But your utterances did not meet these criteria according to my assessment.

No, not at all. Sorry,but i doubt this would be best. It seems SarathW agrees with you. The Buddha said:

“Mendicants, sentient beings come together and converge because of an element. Those who believe in low things come together and converge with those who believe in low things. Those who believe in good things come together and converge with those who believe in good things.

In the past, too, sentient beings came together and converged because of an element. …

In the future, too, sentient beings will come together and converge because of an element. …

At present, too, sentient beings come together and converge because of an element. Those who believe in low things come together and converge with those who believe in low things. Those who believe in good things come together and converge with those who believe in good things.”

It’s like how dung comes together with dung, urine with urine, spit with spit, pus with pus, and blood with blood. In the same way, sentient beings come together and converge because of an element. Those who believe in low things come together and converge with those who believe in low things. In the past … In the future … At present, too, sentient beings come together and converge because of an element. Those who believe in low things come together and converge with those who believe in low things.

It’s like how milk comes together with milk, oil with oil, ghee with ghee, honey with honey, and molasses with molasses. In the same way, sentient beings come together and converge because of an element. Those who believe in good things come together and converge with those who believe in good things. In the past … In the future … At present, too, sentient beings come together and converge because of an element. Those who believe in good things come together and converge with those who believe in good things.”

in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

When I said , "You are your own critic", I was talking about your insistence for "sutta only" yet you admitted that the in-breaths and out-breaths would interrupt a concentrated mind.
Therefore I said, "you are your own critic."

As far as criticising being wrong. Hmmm. "You are your own critic."

You can believe and disbelieve whatever you wish. You know what is available and your choices have results. However, let this not be a debate on abhidhamma versus sutta unless you want to make a "Sutta only" group. 95% or more of The Bhikkhu Sangha world-wide accepts the Abhidhamma/commentaries. The
sutta commentaries are based on Abhidhamma.

This is clearly an Abhidhamma question. Mindmoments are Abhidhamma.

There is only Abhidhamma to reference for the mindmoments in succession exceeding 7. This is too detailed to repeat every time the Buddha mentions citta or jhāna. That is how the tipitaka and commentaries are structured. It is very logically designed.. This 7 mindmoment limit is explained in the abhidhamma under mind-door processes.

There is a vinaya pitaka reference on how one can hear sounds while in "Samadhi" . It is referenced in my book. This is explained in the commentaries and also in my book. You would need to know about mindmoments and the limit of 7 to understand this point. However, best jhāna is without sounds. This was about Venerable Mahamoggalana's concentration in his early weeks prior to arahantship.

For those who wish to look this up, please see Ven Boddhi's Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma.

you admitted that the in-breaths and out-breaths would interrupt a concentrated mind.

I did not. I did not say in-breaths and out-breaths would interrupt a concentrated mind. I said awareness of in-breaths and out-breaths cannot include ekaggata. I imagine there are degrees of concentration and that a mind that constantly knows in-breaths and out-breaths has a concentrated mind but not the ekaggata referred to in the jhana suttas. There are many suttas that refer to concentration of anapanasati but this phrase may not necessarily include ekaggata.

However, let this not be a debate on abhidhamma versus sutta unless you want to make a "Sutta only" group.

The Refuge in the Dhamma is the Blessed One perfectly spoke the Dhamma. Imo, refuge in Abhidhamma is not Dhamma refuge because it assumes or infers the Buddha did not teach perfectly; that further explanation is required.

For those who wish to look this up, please see Ven Boddhi's Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma.

For me, Bhikkhu Bodhi's translations are reasonable and important but the footnotes in his translations are often not objects of refuge.

To conclude, I think two posters here made logical cases about why the ekkaggata mentioned by the Buddha is something very special rather than something existing in every moment mind; including mind moments of an unwholesome or ordinary nature.

Therefore, according to Abhidhamma, ekaggata can be unwholesome too (a miccha ekaggata): With one pointed mind I kill somebody. Since it's present in every single consciousness as you said, then no point of specifically mention it in the suttas as good or bad mind, it will be automatically there.

MN 79 has the term ekanta-sukhassa; which may possibly be relevant; because it highlights how in jhana the mind has only one exclusive object, namely, happiness.

“And which, revered sir, is this reasoned course for realising a world that is exclusively happy?’ “As to this, Udāyin, a monk, aloof from pleasures of the senses, aloof from unskilled states of mind, enters and abides in the first meditation, which is accompanied by initial thought and discursive thought, is born of aloofness and is rapturous and joyful. By allaying initial and discursive thought, the mind subjectively tranquillised and fixed on one point, he enters and abides in the second meditation, which is devoid of initial and discursive thought, is born of concentration and is rapturous and joyful. By the fading out of rapture, he dwells with equanimity, attentive and clearly conscious, and experiences in his person that joy of which the ariyans say: ‘Joyful lives he who has equanimity and is mindful’, and he enters and abides in the third meditation. This, Udāyin, is that reasoned course for realising a world that is exclusively happy.”

I personally, through experriencing jhanas fairly regular, prefer the term collected over concentration. Concentration to me has craving in it, Collectedness is concentration with the "tranquilizing" of the bodily formations done as a back bone to the meditation

"Collectedness" can also refer to the gathering together of other path factors; similar to how eight strands can combine to make a strong rope. The term "ekaggata" is found in the following:

The Blessed One said: "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness (ekaggatā) of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions.

"Collectedness" can also refer to the gathering together of other path factors; similar to how eight strands can combine to make a strong rope. The term "ekaggata" is found in the following:

The Blessed One said: "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness (ekaggatā) of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions.

Maybe of interest to some could be the concurring recollection by Ajahn Chah, how he experienced Ekaggatā for the first time, and how he explained it coming to be (retold by Ajahn Jayasaro), p. 98-100:

When I look back on the days when I was practising alone, it was painful and full of the most challenging ordeals, but at the same time, I really enjoyed it. The enjoyment and the suffering went together. Pretty much the same as eating grilled peka leaves dipped in chilli sauce and ground ginger. It’s delicious – but it’s hot! You’re eating it and the snot’s flowing down, but you can’t stop because it tastes so good. You’re eating away and at the same time you’re groaning, ‘Oh! Oh!’ That’s what the practice was like in those days.
You have to be really resolute to practice Dhamma. It’s not a light thing. It’s heavy! You have to put your life on the line. A tiger’s going to eat you, an elephant’s going to trample you – then, so be it. You think like that.

When you’ve kept your precepts purely, there’s nothing more to worry about: it’s as if you’re already dead. If you die, then it’s as if there’s nothing to die, and so you’re not afraid. This is called the weapon of Dhamma. I’ve been on mountaintops all over the country, and this single weapon of Dhamma has always triumphed. You completely let go. You’re bold. You’re ready to die. You risk your life.
As I thought about it, I saw how the weapon of the Buddha strengthens the mind. It’s the best of all weapons. I kept reflecting, looking, thinking, seeing. When the mind truly sees, it penetrates things completely: suffering is like this, the cessation of suffering is like this. And so, there’s ease and contentment. Someone who sees suffering but doesn’t penetrate right through it, who’s content with feelings of inner peace – they have no way of knowing this.

...

The heart of a meditation monk is incredibly resolute. Through meditation, anybody who is ready to give their life for the Dhamma develops a mind that is great in size and scope, utterly firm. The ability to let go becomes sublime.

All this is called vitakka: * raising something up in the mind, and then vicāra: examining it. These two things keep working together until the matter is fully penetrated. At this point, rapture (pīti) arises in the mind ...

As I thought of practising walking meditation or of the virtues of the Buddha or the Dhamma, the rapture seeped through my whole body and thoroughly refreshed it. As I sat there, my mind overflowed with joy in my actions – all the obstacles I’d overcome – and my hair stood on end and tears started to fall. I felt even
more inspired to struggle and persevere. There was no question of discouragement arising, whatever happened. There was vitakka, vicāra, rapture and a bliss accompanied by awareness.
The mind was upheld by the vitakka and vicāra, and stabilized by the bliss. At that moment, you could say it was dependent on the power of absorption (jhāna) if you like, I don’t know. That’s just how it was. If you want to call it absorption, then go ahead. Before long, vitakka and vicāra were abandoned, rapture disappeared and the mind had a single focus (ekaggatā), samādhi was firmly established, and the lucid calm that is a foundation for wisdom had arisen.

So I gained the insight that it’s through practice that knowing and seeing take place. Studying and thinking about it is something else altogether. Even the thoughts and assumptions you make about how things will be are included in the things that you see clearly, and they are revealed to be in contradiction to the way things are.

...

However many Dhamma talks you listen to, however much you study, the knowledge you gain from that doesn’t take you all the way to the truth, and so it can never free you of doubts and hesitation. You have to practise. If your knowledge is a realization of the truth, then things come to a conclusion. I don’t know how you’d put it into words, but it just happens naturally, it’s inevitable. It’s nothing other than the ‘natural mind’ (pakati citta) arising.

The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]